Friday, March 22, 2013

I have been in receipt of many tweets and E-Mails criticizing
me for advocating that the case of Sanjay Dutt, who has been convicted under
the Arms Act for having been found in illegal possession of two fire-arms and
sentenced to five years of imprisonment, should be treated differently and any
petition from him for a lenient view of his guilt should be considered
sympathetically.

2.In my first tweet after his conviction by a bench
of the Supreme Court, I had said that, as in the US, there is a need for a
provision in our laws under which a court can allow a convicted criminal in
certain cases to do compulsory community service in lieu of imprisonment to
cover cases like that of Sanjay.

3.Subsequently, I had tweeted my agreement with the
view of retired Justice Katju, Chairman of the Press Council of India, that
Sanjay’s case deserves pardon in view of the good service to the community that
he and his parents had done in the past. However, I had differed from Justice
Katju in respect of the community service. I am of the view that Sanjay could
be considered for pardonnot for his
good service of the past, but for the community service that he promises to do
in future in lieu of the imprisonment. His performance has to be closely
monitored by someone designated by the Governor to ensure that he carries out
his solemn commitment. If he violates his commitment, his pardon should be
cancelled.

4.My views have been strongly criticized on the
following grounds .Firstly, he has committed a heinous offence by accepting a
gift of arms from a person allegedly connected with Mumbai’s mafia. Secondly,
if any special consideration is shown to him by virtue of his celebrity status,
it would be a violation of the sacred principle of equality before law.
Thirdly, there are many others who are languishing in jail despite their good
service to the community. When the law has not shown them any special
consideration, why should it show a special consideration only to Sanjay.

5. Sanjay is a confirmed convict under the Arms Act
against whom a minimum sentence of five years as provided in the Arms Act has
been awarded by the Supreme Court. Taking into consideration the 18 months that
Sanjay had already spent in jail during the trial, the court has ordered that
he should spend anotherthree and a half
years.

6.I argue for
a lenient view in his case on the following grounds

·Even
though Sanjay has been found guilty of illegal possession of arms, no evidence
has been forthcoming to show that he was aware that these arms were part of a
consignment that had been smuggled in from Pakistan for use in the Mumbai
serial blasts of March 1993. If he was aware of this fact, as a law-abiding
citizen, he should have immediately alerted the police and his failure to do so
would have amounted to complicity in an act of terrorism. Since there is no
evidence to show that he was aware of this fact, he cannot be accused of
complicity in an act of terrorism.

·No
other evidence has been forthcoming to show that he was part of the conspiracy
relating to the Mumbai blasts. He has not been found guilty of an act of
terrorism.

·Despite
the absence of any evidence to show his involvement, he was treated as a
suspect under the TADA along with the members of the conspiracy. As a result,
he was not tried separately under the Arms Act, but along with the conspirators
and perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts. The trial went on for 20 years. Had he
been tried separately under the Arms Act and not with others, his case might
have concluded a long time ago and by now he might have completed his sentence

·His
case being clubbed along with the cases against others has resulted in his having
to wait for 20 years for the final judgment and he has to go to jail now after
this long delay, spending another three and a half years in custody. This is
unfair to him and is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

7.Taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances relating to the conviction of Sanjay I had
suggested that he should be treated differently and a sympathetic view should
be taken if he petitions for pardon. It will not be a violation of the
principle of equality before law. My views have nothing to do with his
celebrity status or his family and social connections.

8. If there are others
with similar facts and circumstances, their cases have to be examined in the
light of those facts and circumstances without any prejudice. In my view,
Sanjay had to suffer unfairly because of his case being clubbed along with the
cases of the conspirators and perpetrators of the blasts in the absence of
credible evidence to warrant it.

9. I will be happy to
stand corrected if I have failed to consider any other relevant fact relating
to him. (23-3-13)